NEW: Classified Docs Were in Biden’s Personal Library

Today on Sekulow, we have new information about Joe Biden's handling of classified documents.

Now we know there was a third location in President Biden's personal library at his home in Delaware. We'll talk about that and more. Secretary Mike Pompeo also joining us to weigh in on this matter. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments.

Or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome back. Welcome to Sekulow.

I'd say welcome back since yesterday because the zoo has continued on. If you didn't catch the Sekulow Brothers Podcast, in the meantime, between yesterday's show and just about an hour later, we had a special counsel appointed to investigate Joe Biden's handling of classified documents. I want to just read for you quickly why you appoint a special counsel.

It's 28 CFR Section 600.1. And this is, again, grounds for appointing a special counsel. Because you hear a lot on TV, especially from the Biden team. They're just doing a review. They're just investigating this.

But again, what they're not telling you is what it really is. The Attorney General, or in cases where the AGs were accused, that's not in this matter, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a special counsel, and this is what's key, when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted. So I want to make it clear to everybody right now, that special counsel's starting point is that this is a criminal investigation of Joe Biden and the people on his team who are moving around these classified documents over a six-year period in multiple locations. And one of those locations now includes his home where his, remember the Corvette yesterday, where his Corvette was kept, that's also where documents were kept, and also his home office. And guess who listed, these are media reports right now, who listed their home address as the Biden residence during this same period of time?

Hunter Biden. And of course, the documents we know that he had in his office involving the University of Pennsylvania, of course, Andy, was documents involving Ukraine. Now, here it's very important. I want everybody to understand, there's very few lawyers that have had experience with special counsels, because there's been so few appointed. It's ironic that we have three going on right now. John Durham is doing the Russiagate probe on the government. You've got the special counsel on Donald Trump and the handling of Mar-a-Lago on January 6th, and now you've got the special counsel dealing with the issues as it relates to Joe Biden. So you've got three special counsels, but these are appointments within the Department of Justice that are focusing on a criminal inquiry. That's right, and I think as Jordan pointed out, and it's worth repeating again, this is not a civil matter, this is not an administrative matter.

The only grounds for appointing a special counsel under the Code of Federal Regulations that Jordan read by the attorney general is to look into a criminal investigation, criminal investigation of a person or matter, and that is warranted. Yeah, but also, they do still at the end, though, this is important for people to understand, Andy, we dealt with Bob Mueller, okay, so the three of us on this set right now have all dealt with a special counsel representing President Trump and the Russia nonsense that went on in 2017 to 2019, and the three of us represented the former President, and we were dealing with Bob Mueller and his staff. They still report to the Department of Justice and say, at the end of the day, the attorney general makes the final call. Yeah, at the end of the day, the attorney general makes the call. The only thing is the special counsel under the statute does not have to report on a day-to-day basis. As it says in the code section, the special counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official at the Department of Justice. But no indictments are coming down without the attorney general signing off on it, which I think, do you know what this means?

There's going to be no indictments on anybody because if they indicted one, first of all, you may have two people running for President of the United States because Biden's supposed to announce pretty soon that are both under special counsel investigations. Yeah, I mean, this is an interesting thing. What's historic is that you have a former President who has declared that he is going to run again, and a current President both being investigated by a special counsel. This has, I don't think, ever been done in history. And again, we want to take your phone calls on it.

1-800-684-3110. Because there's a lot of questions of, okay, where could this go? Where could it not go? Like, what are the limits to this special counsel that was appointed by Merrick Garland yesterday? How far could he go with criminal prosecutions?

And also, contrast that with Trump. So give us your calls. 1-800-684-3110. Welcome back to SECIO. We've got good substantive questions coming in now that we have Robert Herr named as the special counsel in the Biden document probe. And I just want to remind you that you don't appoint a special counsel for civil matters. Under this statute, it's appointed for a criminal investigation or a potential criminal act. And the call came in from – the comment came in from Sean on Rumble.

And we got a lot of calls coming in at 1-800-684-3110. Those are being screened now. And Sean asked, so special counsel can only suggest the AG that they indict? He's just not sure if he understands the system and wants to know more about it. So can a special counsel just indict someone?

No. So a U.S. attorney normally doesn't have to go to the attorney general for an indictment on a case. But as it relates to the special counsel, what they really do is do a report to the attorney general. They will not independently bring a criminal case without the sign off of the – either the attorney general or the deputy attorney general. So the question, like when Durham was bringing those cases against some of those smaller actors involving the Russia probe – They had to be signed off by the AG.

He was not doing that unilaterally. Correct. So I hope – I think that answers your question, Sean. Yeah, that's important. It's not independent counsel. It's special counsel. And there used to be an independent counsel statute.

That was done away with African stars. Right. What about subpoena power?

I don't know if people – Very broad. The same as a U.S. attorney, correct? Don't have to get signed off on that? Yeah, exactly.

You can use the grand jury subpoena just as if you were a United States attorney. They don't have to get signed off on that. No. People really want to know just how much can Garland direct this. That's what they're asking. Look, major decisions in the case – we know this from dealing with Mueller. You know, they wanted to interview the President, if you remember, President Trump.

And we thought that was not correct. We didn't think that the executive – the chief – the commander-in-chief, the President of the United States, had to subject himself to an interview by his own branch of government. Because remember, the Department of Justice is within the executive branch.

They're going to have the same issue here. If Bob Herr wants to move this forward, he may want to interview the President. And then the lawyers have to make a decision. Now, I'll tell you what our position was, and I don't know what the vice President's position will be. Our position was that we're not going to have the President interviewed by the Department of Justice, which is an agency that works for him.

In other words, it's an inter-department because the executive branch is where the Department of Justice lies. So there's all these constitutional questions that would have never been litigated. Now, we were prepared to litigate it during the impeachment – excuse me, the investigation of Bob Mueller. We didn't have to because at the end we submitted written answers. And that may be the way this goes because that's kind of the historical precedent.

You know what? If I was the lawyer for President Biden, you know what I'd be thinking? I'd be saying, boy, I'm sure glad Sekulow, Econimo, and Sekulow and Jane Raskin and companies decided, you know what? We're not going to have him submit to an oral exam, a deposition. We'll just do it by written question because you know what we established? It's called a precedent. But like I said, folks, we want your questions because we are uniquely qualified to address this.

We know this statute inside and out and how it works. This is about a minute-long soundbite, but I want to play it from yesterday because it was the question from a reporter. These reporters are getting pretty angry with Karine Jean-Pierre and not just Peter Doocy, by the way, and the way that this has been laid out to the media, the way that how President Biden came out and made the statement in Mexico, like, okay, this was about it, same way she did that kind of statement. So I want you to take a listen to the question and then the answer by Karine Jean-Pierre. The review was underway when you guys gave a detailed statement about the first set of documents. The review was underway when the President spoke about the first set of documents. You're now saying that you didn't talk about the second set of documents discovered almost a month prior because the review was underway. I don't understand.

It doesn't make any sense. The review was underway the entire time. The only difference was that reporters had information on the first set of documents and, therefore, you chose to exclude the second set of documents until reporters got information on the second set of documents. Well, let me unconfuse you for a second, Phil. Look, we are trying to do this by the book, and I said yesterday this was under review by the Department of Justice, and the process is as such.

When the President's lawyers realized that the documents existed, that they were there, they reached out to the archives, they reached out to the Department of Justice. Rightfully so, may I add, that is what you're supposed to do. Okay, here's the big question, though, and listen, I do feel bad for her because she's the spokesperson.

We've been in this situation. The facts start, you know, start developing in a different way. I got a lot of flak, I remember, from a meeting because I said, well, facts develop because facts do develop. I mean, that was like, they were acting like, oh my gosh, no, well, facts are facts.

Especially when you're trying to break into a response every moment. Okay, so here's the thing to ask yourself. What is it that triggered, after six years, the disclosure by the lawyers for the President, and that's an appropriate way of handling it, the lawyers, the private lawyers, they are basically like the three of us were. They really weren't private lawyers.

I want to explain that. No, they were White House counsel before. The White House counsel left a week before the midterm elections and found these documents.

Yeah. Well, this is because they knew that a search warrant was going to be executed against the former President. Remember, the timeline here is very, very important. November 4th, the National Archives, Office of Inspector General contacted a prosecutor at DOJ and formed him at White House counsel, so at that point it was the White House counsel, notified the Archives that the documents being with classification marks were identified in the Penn-Biden Center for Diplomacy in D.C. On November 8th is the midterm elections. On November 9th, the FBI commenced an assessment consistent with its standard protocols. What does that mean, Andy, the standard protocols? Consistent with what the rules and regulations are. Within the Department of Justice's manual? Within the Department of Justice's manual, U.S. Attorney's manual.

Okay, so that's what they did. So that started the day after the election. November 14th, pursuant to the special counsel regulations, Garland assigned U.S. Attorney Lausch to conduct the initial inquiry. November 15th, former President Trump announces his candidacy for President.

November 18th, A.G. Garland appoints Jack Smith. At that point, he already knew that these document issues for Biden were an issue. And then December 20th, President Biden's personal counsel informed Lausch again that additional documents had been found. And, of course, yesterday we have an additional document, by the way, found inside his home library, like his home office. I'm expecting that's what it is. And Hunter Biden, who there's all kinds of criminal investigations going on right now.

Hunter Biden had listed that address as a residence on various applications. So, you know, again, there's just a lot of things we don't know the answer to yet, so we're trying to figure out what that's going to mean. But you see where it's going, folks. I mean, this is... But they're not going to indict a sitting President because our argument was they can't. But you know what?

They better not do indict the other President too, the former President, because I think politically disastrous. You want to take a call, Jordan? Yeah, we can go to calls 1-800-684-3110. Charles in Georgia, online 1. Hey, Charles.

Hey, how are you? Thanks for taking my call. Sure. Just in the recent comment about not charging a sitting President, if in fact the vice President committed a crime prior to being President, where does that leave things? You cannot indict a sitting President because it interferes with the office. I argued that before the Senate. I argued that at the Supreme Court of the United States. I argued that a President could go into federal court to stop that. The Supreme Court agreed that the federal jurisdiction was appropriate there.

So our position is the same. Because it's now Joe Biden, you don't change the rules. A sitting President can't be indicted. But the answer to this whole thing is nobody should be indicted because this is a document dispute.

And obviously there are documents disputes with all of these administrations. Yeah, I was wondering though, take back to the Paula Jones matter where... Yeah, civil suit. That was civil suit. Civil suit, no special counsel until Ken Starr was already impaneled.

Remember? That's where people are just... I know where people are confused because Bill Clinton was... That was a civil lawsuit.

So that... You have to make all those divisions. They could call this whatever they want, but at the end of the day this is a criminal investigation. Well, yeah, it is a criminal investigation. The statute clearly says that. That is what triggers the ability of the Attorney General or the acting AG to appoint a special counsel as criminal.

The possibility that crimes have been committed. Yeah, 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Again, 1-800-684-3110. We're going to continue to cover this, continue to get your calls, your questions, to explain this to you as well. Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is going to be joining us as well. He'll talk about this.

He's also going to talk about China funding higher education because that's a direct connection here because of the PEN-Biden Center and his TikTok article on ACLJ.org. Again, we keep preaching it here, the dangers of TikTok. It's your kids and grandkids who are likely the ones you're probably not using it, who I'm talking to, but you might be. This is a very dangerous app to have on your phone because of the way the Chinese Communist Party is able to access your information and provide propaganda. You know, Chinese kids who are using this are getting a lot of academic and really positive content and a lot of U.S. kids are getting negative American content and just junk.

No, I think that's true. And here the Biden-PEN Center received upwards of $54 million from the Chinese government. Documents that relate to... We know that now, $54 million? Yes, that was the number.

Pretty big number. And the documents at the Biden Center that were classified, office control basically paid for by the Chinese government, Communist Party, had Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom. We don't know about the...

They are not saying a word about these other documents and where they came from. Really weird. I mean, we're here like they were like in a box in the garage. Next to the... Not necessarily locked away separately. No, but the garage was locked. The garage door was locked.

Does that mean like it was locked like when you close your garage door open or it closes? In the office, we don't know if it was like in a locked cabinet. No, we haven't gotten that as much information on this. Yeah, I don't think we're going to be getting a lot of information on that right now. We do have to make that clear to folks too.

Lots of stuff we don't know. Yeah. 1-800-684-3110, get your calls in. We're going to be joined by Secretary Pompeo next.

Hey, welcome back to the broadcast. And we are taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Joining us now is our Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Mike, I guess start with the reaction here.

You know, you can't make this stuff up. You've now got the Attorney General appointing. There are three special counsels going right now.

Durham, Her, and Jack Smith. So this is okay. So this is a little unprecedented territory. Your reaction to the appointment of a special counsel on President Biden's classified documents issue? Oh, goodness. You're right. You can't make this up. Look, given the fact that there was a special counsel appointed to review classified information that was potentially down in Mar-a-Lago in the possession of a former President, this had to be done.

I'll be honest. I'm not a big special counsel fan. I think the Attorney General has the responsibility and the accountability and has to own the actions they take. You can't separate this executive branch by handing it off to someone and saying, hey, you know, I didn't have anything to do with this.

But look, given the way Mayor Garland has proceeded, Attorney General Garland has proceeded, this had to happen. I hope that this special counsel will get to the bottom. We still don't know a heck of a lot about what actually happened here. We don't know if this is all of them. And we don't know why it is it took them weeks and weeks and weeks to make sure that the public understood what they had from the most transparent administration in history, or at least so they say.

Let me follow up with something. And by the way, as you can imagine, I am no fan of special counsel statute either. And I'm one of the few lawyers in the United States that have dealt with a special counsel, and I think the whole system is ridiculous. And it's it's fraught with peril for anybody, any citizen. And that's like an unaccountable. I mean, technically, they're accountable to the attorney general, but the politics going on behind the scenes are unreal.

You're exactly right. But, you know, there is something we need to say here. And I've said this and we've stressed this on the program, whether it's President Biden or it's President Trump, if these documents aren't declassified, nobody should be handling, you know, SCI material, top secret material at their place in Florida or their place at the beach or in in Delaware or at their office controlled by the Chinese, donated by the Chinese government.

You have to this material, SCI material, of course, any classified material could be serious. But, you know, Mike, if any of us would have done this, we would have already gotten the knock on the door. I was reminded by someone this morning who's read my book that's coming out in a couple of weeks on page one or six, I talked about exactly this. I talked about the fact that Jake Sullivan, the current national security adviser, shared highly classified information on with Secretary Clinton when I served on the Benghazi committee. And he'd been a soldier in E5 in the Army or a GS 12 at the Department of Energy.

It's on page one or six. Had he done that, he wouldn't be, whereas today, reading the most sensitive information that America faces, we have no confidence he won't put it someplace that's a jeopardy to get. No one should have classified information. If it's not worthy of classification, declassify the stuff, let it get out to where it needs to be.

But if you're charged with and have a duty to protect it, you can't take it to a place that it is not authorized to be. And it's pretty clear that we've now had lots of senior leaders do that. Yeah.

That passed the stop. All right, Jordan. So one thing that's risen out of the Biden document troubles is the spotlight we've talked about before, Secretary Pompeo, on how universities receive large sums of money from foreign adversaries. And you tweeted yesterday how the CCP spends billions of unreported dollars to American campuses. It's not about generosity but espionage. We know now that the Biden pin center received $54 million from the CCP and had these classified documents located in them for at least a handful of, at least a few years. We're still waiting to figure out that time period between where these were when that office wasn't open yet. But that being said, the fact that the CCP just wrote that $54 million check to pin to open the Biden center, and that's where he decided to put these documents. So there's two pieces to this, Jordan. The first is the broader piece, which is does anyone believe for a moment that that $50 million went to the University of Penn because they were trying to help students be better Americans? No, they went there to conduct espionage and influence operations against all of those involved, including, likely, a sitting former vice President. That's what that money is for.

It's what it's intended for. It's not coming from a Chinese philanthropist. It's coming from the Chinese Communist Party itself. And the fact that you, Penn and Biden took it as deeply troubling. Second, goodness gracious, now you've got classified information mixed with that very activity at that very location, that very place. I don't know who all is on the staff at the UPenn Biden Center. I don't know who all had access to that. But it is often the case that the Chinese Communist Party will say, we'll provide you this money if you'll let my cousin, my son, my friend be at that place so that they can be part of that and begin to actually operate inside of that. We'll find out if that's true here. It may well not be. But the Chinese Communist Party is pretty sophisticated about how they spend their money, and it was not out of charity that they provided to UPenn Biden Center. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

I mean, usually when you have a gift like that, there are conditions to the gift, or at least either expressly or not. So you have to worry about that. Let me ask you this also. We don't know where this is going to go yet because it's just the beginning of an investigation. But it's ironic to me, and I think this says something. We've got to think about this. We've got two candidates that are running for President right now. Both have special counsels investigating their handling of classified documents.

You still have John Durham. He's doing the investigation basically on the FBI and what they were doing wrong as it related to the Russia investigation. In one real sense here, Mike, this is a distraction from the bigger problem, which is governments like the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party. And I tie that right into your article that you've got posted at ACLJ.org on TikTok, Time to Ban It. TikTok isn't just a viral video.

It's a dangerous Chinese Communist Party virus. Explain to people what's happening. If you've got TikTok on your phone, what you're doing here? As a technical matter, that information that you provide, the feedback, what you punch a button, what you search for, the things you watch, how long you watch them, where you watch them from, who else is watching it alongside of you, who'd you send the message to and say, hey, you should go say this. All that information is being gathered. And that information is being gathered, stored somewhere today that is not inside the United States.

It's outside the United States. And the Chinese intelligence service, their MSS and the broader party more directly are in control of TikTok. And so what they'll use that information for, goodness only knows, but it is not it is not innocent.

It is not accidental. It is very intentional that they're using this to improve their systems, improve their A.I. and be able to track American citizens all across the world. Second, they're also pushing messages.

They're suggesting things you should see, things about Black Lives Matter operating here, things about the decline of the United States of America. So TikTok not only be used to garner, steal, harvest information from Americans, it is pushing propaganda through their united front, through their operations to change and shape America. That's bad for America to allow that continue to happen. It should be banned. India did it. There's no reason America can't do it, too. Mike Pompeo has a great article up at ACLJ.org. Time to ban it. TikTok isn't just viral videos.

It's a dangerous Chinese Communist Party virus. And we appreciate, Mike, you always being with us and being part of the team here at the ACLJ. Thanks so much for your insight on this. Thank you, Jake. Yes, very good. Andy, I want to go to you quickly here before we go to a break. We're going to be here for another half hour, folks. If we don't get the full hour of the broadcast, ACLJ.org, Rumble, Facebook, YouTube, Sirius XM, and a lot of stations as well. But you're going to want to stay tuned for the next hour.

But Andy, I wanted to ask you this. We do have two special counsels investigating two potential Presidents, pronounced Presidential candidates. I mean, it's unprecedented. That's never happened in the history of the country. I mean, you've got two Presidents, a President and a former President who are under, let's face it, under this statute, Jake, criminal investigation. And that is unprecedented.

Now, it also shows that the weaponization of these agencies have real consequences for how we operate as a constitutional republic. All right, we're taking a break. When we come back, we're going to take your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

We've opened up a couple of lines. 800-684-3110. Support the work of the ACLJ. We've got a FOIA out on this already. It was delivered yesterday. ACLJ.org for that.

ACLJ.org. We'll be back in just a moment. Keeping you informed and engaged. Now more than ever, this is Sekulow. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Sekulow.

So just to kind of reset for you, if you're just joining us, we'll take your phone calls to 1-800-684-3110. We were just joined by Secretary Pompeo. You see all the Chinese connections here now more and more with the $54 million that went to the PEN-Biden Center. And in the next segment, we're going to get deeper into the House Oversight Committee panel to probe Chinese money going to universities where Joe Biden worked and these classified memos were found. So you're not going to just – see, this is why I think it's also important to point out to everybody listening, and just as a reminder when this occurred, when you have these special councils, Congress doesn't give up its role.

And especially the Republicans who control the House of Representatives. So they will have dual investigations. They may not have always the same access to information, but they can certainly conduct a review of the Chinese money coming into universities linked to Joe Biden. Yeah, and the White House Counsel's Office has an interesting role here. Normally they, quote, staff up when there's a change in leadership in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

In other words, the other party – the party that they're not is in power. They even staff up even more when you get a special council. And now they got a special – well, we've been through this, okay, team? We've been through this with a special council and congressional senatorial oversight. We had the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the Russia issues. So we've been through this.

So yeah, it's a whole different ballgame. Let's go ahead and take phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. The latest is the special council has been appointed. Andy, as you said, that is a criminal probe. It is a criminal probe. It is a criminal investigation.

That is the – it is not civil. It is not administrative. In order for the attorney general to trigger that statute, he has to have made a decision that there is something in the Justice Department, conflict of interest or other exceptional circumstance that exists that requires it to be put out of the Justice Department. Farmed out into a special council, but it's criminal in nature, the investigation. And then, of course, we now know as of yesterday that the document – a document was found in the President's personal library at his home. We also found out that the home has been listed as an address by Hunter Biden. I mean, you can't make this up. And, of course, the documents that we know exist are about Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom.

We do not know what's in these other documents that have just been produced. We are taking your calls, 1-800-684-3110. Joanne is calling from Ohio on Line 2. Hi, Joanne. I'll hang up and listen to the answer.

Hi, Joanne. First of all, when this U.S. attorney in Chicago got this case, why were Biden's attorneys and Biden's people still allowed access to this stuff? Why didn't the U.S. attorney put his own people to look through whatever Biden had and all of his properties and everything else? The President's personal counsel contacted the Justice Department that they had located these documents. And they assigned a U.S. attorney. Yeah, then a U.S. attorney was assigned. And we know that the FBI went to the second location, which is the garage in the home in Delaware, to secure it.

Right. And we also know that the FBI had investigated or at least met with and interviewed staff. When they say interviewed staff, Andy, what does that mean? Just exactly that, interviewed people who are around the President or who may have knowledge of where these documents came from and how they got there. On that point, I mean, it went so far back as one of his assistant secretary, like a secretary position when he was vice President, who is now the deputy head of protocol for Department of Defense.

So, I mean, they went to people way back, like who served in the vice President's office. Logan, you've been watching some of the mainstream media outlets' coverage of this. What's your sense? Yeah, I think they're actually doing an okay job. I think they're trying to cater to their audience while also being a little factual.

You know, we saw this morning with Don Lemon and Poppy Harlow and their morning show. They were pretty tough on Chuck Schumer. Tough, I think, is a strong word, but maybe more direct and more specific than they would have been in this. They would have been much harder if this was for President. Let me tell you what you're not talking about.

Kevin McCarthy and all that battle. Nope, that is ancient history. Isn't that amazing?

That's the way it works. All right, folks, we're taking a break. When we come back, we'll take your calls. 1-800-684-3110.

The China connection to all this. Terry Hudson, our director of policy, will be joining us again. 1-800-684-3110 is a way to call us if you want to support the work of the ACLJ.

Do that at ACLJ.org, ACLJ.org. Also, we encourage you to follow us on our social media, at Logan Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at ACLJ, at Jay Sekulow, wherever you get your social media feeds. We'll be back with more in just a moment. We'll start taking some of your phone calls. We teased a little bit of it in the first five minutes of the second half hour, but there is a number of universities. We've talked about this extensively on our broadcast that receive millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party. What we have learned is that the Pitt and Biden Center, surprise, surprise, also received tens of millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party. $54 million, exactly, for just the few years that they were, I guess, renting office space.

He had a handful of staff, not huge salaries because they were probably part-time, most of them, but kind of like you said, it's a holding position. Again, though, it begs the question, a Chinese Communist Party-funded office had classified documents inside of it. The Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated a lot of the universities, and at the University of Pennsylvania, the university's faculty later pressured the Biden Justice Department – ready for this, folks? – to end the FBI's primary Chinese counter-espionage efforts, known as the China Initiative, that sought to root out spies in the U.S. academy. Although, yesterday, the FBI raided a Chinese police station in New York. That was a Chinese police station, Chinese government police station, to, quote, help the citizens from China that are in New York, but we know what's really going on there. Harry Hutchison has been really – our director of policy has been doing a deep dive on this.

Harry, what have you found? Well, I have found, from just the news with John Solomon, that the University of Pennsylvania actually received almost $70 million in donations – That's gone up $16 million since yesterday. – from Chinese sources from 2013 to 2019, two-thirds of which was collected while employing Joe Biden as a guest professor. So, essentially, he gave the university access to his name, then the university got money from Chinese donors, and apparently there is clear evidence that during the same period of time, Hunter Biden was working with the Chinese government and other entities to land contracts. And so – And when was the time period – do we know the time period, Harry, where Hunter Biden was using the President's home address, the Delaware House address, as his address?

Well, that time period, as I understand it, would be after 2017. So, during that interim period where the documents were actually in possession of Joe Biden and his Corvette, Hunter Biden essentially had access, if you will, to those documents. And so, one of the things that is really bizarre to most American people – and I know there has been some discussion about equivalency between what was going on at Mar-a-Lago with President Trump and with Vice President Biden's documents, now President Biden – but it's clear beyond question that the documents that President Trump or former President Trump held were secured at least by the Secret Service. And there's no evidence that Hunter Biden took advantage of any government official to secure those documents.

Because at the time the vice President was out of office, normally their security detail only lasts for about six months and then it's over. Now, having said all of that and all of these issues, neither one of these President and former Presidents should have been handling, you know, if they are classified documents that way. The difference is President Trump could have declassified those documents when he was President.

A vice President can't do that. But in neither case is this a good way to handle classified documents. But it's also important to understand here that this is a criminal probe.

So here's the question, Andy. Does this criminal probe go into China's connection to the University of Pennsylvania? It ought to because, as Professor Hutchison just pointed out, this is a major funding entity from, what, 2013 to 2019, $70 million into the University of Pennsylvania. And you think they were just giving that from private donors? No, it was the Chinese Communist Party. And the Chinese Communist Party doesn't give money unless there is a motive and an intent to do so. And what were we using the Biden Center for? A repository of classified documents that were in there in the vice President's office, Biden's office, in an institution which has direct connections with the Chinese Communist Party. You know, it's worth pointing out, as Newt Gingrich said the other day, they have a lot of connections with government. The President of the University of Pennsylvania became Biden's ambassador to Germany.

So there's a lot of connections between Pennsylvania and its officials, the Chinese Communist Party, and the Biden administration. Someone needs to take all those strings in hand and figure out where they end, Jay. All right, let's go ahead. We're going to take calls. We open up our phone lines for you. 1-800-684-3110. Yeah, let's go to Brenda in California on Line 1. Hey, Brenda, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air.

Thank you for taking my call. Hey, those classified documents were protected because Biden had his security alarm on, his car on. Oh, there you go. That's just like the Secret Service. 1967 Corvette, unless he installed one, did not have security alarms.

No. But I do think it's, again, in that statement, he mentioned the Corvette more than anything else. Well, he was trying to be funny, except it's classified documents. And the last classified documents he had involved Ukraine and Iran and the United Kingdom.

And you notice the silence on this one, Harry? Nothing about what these other documents were. Not even the topic. No, I think it's really imperative to note that President Biden doesn't seem to understand the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is whether or not the classified documents were found at a secure or unsecured location.

And clearly it was the latter. So it doesn't matter whether he was surprised. It doesn't matter whether he takes documents seriously, as his press secretary alleges. I think at the end of the day, President Biden misses the fundamental point. He did not comply with the law with respect to custodial protection of classified documents.

That is, at the end of the day, the true story. The question becomes in all of this whether they will indict in either case. And I can't imagine with both of these going on, Andy, they'll investigate it. But indicting either one of these? Well, you can't indict a sitting President. You can't indict Biden. You're going to indict former President Trump when he had the authority to declassify, but you're not going to do anything to the other? There's no way. And they're both running for President.

Biden hasn't officially announced yet. But if you were Merrick Garland, I mean, this is an easy call at the end of the day. You let it go. You let it go.

Yeah. And I share with you the reservations that you have about special counsel. I don't really like it. Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state, just said he didn't like it. I don't like going outside the Justice Department that should be in itself have its own integrity and independence and doesn't have to worry about political motivations. Although I see what Garland did. I was frankly shocked to see that Merrick Garland showed some guts in doing something like this. He would have been impeached definitely by the House and probably had to resign. There is going to be impeachment talk, too.

I talked about it on the podcast. I mean, just because the way President Trump was treated. Yeah, they lowered the bar to impeachment so significantly.

It's a political attack. And, you know, we've been through it. You can put people through hell by impeaching them. Even if you know that you likely won't get a conviction, which they all knew both times.

It's a very difficult problem. Listen, it took 10 lawyers, six, three months to do it. There's a lot of other people who get into a lot of, I mean, their staffs have to hire lawyers. I mean, it becomes an economic thing. And they did it to the Republican staffs.

They did it to the Trump staffs. You have to wonder if that's simmering on Capitol Hill right now. Do we have any sense if it is? You know, I think people, I think we have more class to just say, and I mean, on our podcast I was saying we might as well do it. But I think that the Republican leadership probably is a bit more class in just saying we should jump to that. I haven't seen a lot of it yet, but of course they're just getting their committee assignments done. I would look to that next week and also whether or not more information comes out about more documents. And they're going to look at the treatment.

So if he keeps getting disparate treatment, I think that also... Biden's house hasn't been subject to a search warrant. Right. Now they're going to say, here's what they're going to say. They're going to say, well, they've been cooperative.

Well, really? Not for six years. For six years they weren't cooperative, number one. Number two, there were documents in the University of Pennsylvania location in Washington and they thought that was it.

And it took them another two months to find these. So let me ask you, I don't like search warrants on these things because I don't think these are documented. But if it's good for the goose, as we say, it should be... Why are they not doing a search warrant on Joe Biden's house? Oh, he's cooperating.

He's not cooperating because, you know, he said his lawyers didn't tell him that he should ask them what's in them. Except he's the President of the United States. So it's a lot of semantics at the end of the day, as Harry likes to say.

It's not good for the country. Neither of these cases. So there's a lot of things we've got to deal with governing.

But listen, you cannot go to one and not the other. No way. Yeah. Again, we'll continue to take your phone calls. Get them in 1-800-684-31. Tim, we're going to spend more time on calls, your questions.

Because there's plenty of questions and good questions. There's no bad questions here because this is complicated stuff. 1-800-684-31. Tim, to talk to us on the air, that's 1-800-684-31. Tim, support the work of the ACLJ. That's at ACLJ.org.

ACLJ.org. Again, we need your financial support. That's how we have Mike Palpeo, Rick Rinnell, this whole team you have assembled here that you've heard from today.

And the whole team that you can't see working at the ACLJ in all different levels of our organization. Donate today. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to the broadcast. We're taking your calls at 800-684-31. Tim, we'll start with a call. Let's go to Steve calling out in New York. Steve, welcome to the broadcast. You're on the air.

Thank you so much. I just wanted to make a comment on possibly there may be an amount of cynicism between myself and several people if this investigation and all this media coverage is smokescreen. Just to make it look like they're investigating Biden just like Trump. And then nothing is going to come out of it just because we know how biased the swamp is. Yeah, but you remember you got Republicans controlling the House, which means the oversight committees, the Judiciary Committee. All of those committees can investigate this because of the China connection, the Intelligence Committee, foreign intelligence.

I mean, there's a lot of oversight that goes not just as what Jordan said earlier. It's not just what the Justice Department. There's not going to be an indictment of Donald Trump, I don't believe. I don't know that. I don't believe that.

That it will be. There's not going to be an indictment of a sitting President of the United States. And that is Joe Biden because the Constitution prohibits that in our view. And that is the Justice Department's position, whether it was Republican or Democrat. But it doesn't mean oversight stops. But where you're right and the cynicism is real and Colonel Westman has joined us. And the cynicism is real, West, because if a citizen, any of us, that had classified security clearance were to do this, it would be a very different result going on right now.

It's a double standard. At the very least, you know, last year we had a civilian employee at the Pentagon who took classified material home and brought it back the next day. She was tried, convicted and sentenced to three months in federal prison. Some people would say that's a sample of him, but she was punished for taking a file home and bringing it back. We're looking at something totally different here. On the other hand, you know, as you know, I have a postgraduate degree in law, but I'm not an attorney. But I think it's out of control when we're trying to take with Trump, for example, a document dispute and make it into a federal crime.

And karma is very, very real. And now the Biden administration is facing something similar. The difference is, though, that President Trump has 24-7 Secret Service protecting whatever documents are at his house. The former vice President at that time did not. But all that to say, neither one of them should have had classified documents in their homes. Absolutely. They mishandled it.

They mishandled it. But Andy, these are criminal investigations, but at the end of the day, are there going to be criminal charges on either one? I don't think so.

No, I don't think there's going to be. I think there's just going to be two years at least of- But there's going to be political ramifications for both of them. Oh, the fallout politically is- Everybody. Both of them.

And this may, you know, it's going to affect their, both of their aspirations and ambitions. Yeah. All right. Trump and Biden.

Yeah. Taking your calls, 800-684-3110. It'll be interesting to know, we'll do this next week maybe, your view on how this affects it politically for you.

I mean, these document disputes. Kelly's calling from Kansas on Line 4. Hi, Kelly. Welcome to the Broadcaster on the Air.

Hey, Jay. Thanks for taking my call. Sure. And I love your band.

Thank you. The thing I want to throw out here is, who found these documents, first of all? And the timing to me is very suspect. This administration doesn't do anything by accident. And the fact that they found these documents, to me, means that there's an underlying, sounds to me, there's an underlying plan. So the question is, you asked a good question, that is, who found the documents?

So we just know this, that the lawyers, the private lawyers for President Biden, which was his former White House counsel, went into private practice, which was perfectly allowed. That would be like the role we played under, for President Trump, at least made the contact with the Department of Justice and the National Archives that these documents, or at least the first batch of documents existed. That was on November 4th, just four days before the midterm elections.

Merrick Gartland did not announce anything because the fear there would have been tainting an election. Then you have, on November 9th, the FBI commenced an assessment. What does an assessment mean, Andy? An assessment of the, you know, what do we need to do? And now that we have these documents, what possible laws could have been broken?

What protocols could have been broken? Who do we need to talk to? Where do we stand?

That's an assessment. Okay, and then November 14th, the special counsel, Lausch, is appointed by Gartland to look at these documents situation. At that point, there was just the one group of documents. Then on November 18th, Jack Smith is appointed as special counsel on the Trump matter. Gartland already knew that the Biden folks had the similar issue of these documents.

And that's what's so ironic here, and I think so unusual here, is that you have two, one candidate for sure, Donald Trump, one potential candidate, which I'm sure President Biden, both have special counsels now. But the documents didn't, they rolled out, then there was another group in December. We don't know who found them, and then another group just, another document just yesterday in his home office.

Yesterday. So the rollout on this, Harry, I'm looking at, and then you got the Chinese connection, as you mentioned. That is where the real exposure can be, is when you, if a foreign government got their hands on this stuff. Absolutely, and it's very possible that a foreign government had access to the documents at the Penn Biden Center. Also, there's another question outstanding, which is where were the documents, the Biden documents, which were found at his house, were they there for the entire period since 2016?

I don't know. And then you also think about the documents again at the Penn Biden Center. The Penn Biden Center did not open until 2018. So where were those documents in the intervening period of time? Were they in the trunk of the Corvette, or were they somewhere else? But the dangerous part of this is, what access did foreign government agents have to this? We know, like, for instance, Eric Swalwell's office, they had a Chinese National Infiltrator's Office. I have no idea what was in the Biden-Penn Center in Washington, D.C. And you do know this, 60-something million dollars went to Penn from the people affiliated with the CCP, that's the Communist Chinese Party. And then you ask yourself, if this intelligence got into the hands of a foreign government, Wes, that's a different ballgame. This is what makes all of this so very, very serious, and that is, these documents were so loosely held, so mishandled, we literally do not know who had eyes on the documents or what the documents were about.

Absolutely, that is why we have laws against things like this. Kathy's calling online. Hi, Kathy, welcome to Broadcaster on the Air.

Thank you so much. I guess in the last conversation you just had, a lot of my questions were answered. But I'm still curious, since we can't invite a sitting President, what are the options if by any chance, which I really don't believe would ever happen, there was some element of wanting to hold accountability for this? Well, the accountability ultimately is the election, and that's just 24 months away, not even.

And believe it or not, I mean, I can't believe we're looking at another one again, but here we go. So that's, it's a political accountability, that's the way our constitutional republic is set up. Not everything is a court accountability, sometimes it's a political process.

And you either elect or don't elect that particular person running for President, or they don't get the nomination of their party, whatever it might be. As it relates to congressional accountability, well, like George said, I mean, if it got serious enough, they've cheapened impeachment so much that the bar for impeachment is certainly lower. Whether they'll do that or not, I have no idea, but those are the kind of things. We're not going to be able to get to Daniel's comment. Let me say this, folks, there's a lot of information that's going to be breaking on this. We may have some updates this afternoon on a Supreme Court case of ours, so you may hear from us this afternoon. We are encouraging you to follow our work, and if you aren't, you should do that. Go to ACLJ.org, sign up for our email alerts, sign up for our Twitter, Rumble, wherever you're watching this, YouTube, of course, and Facebook, but also Twitter and Truth Social as well, so you can get information as it breaks.

At Jay Sekulow, at Jordan Sekulow, at Logan Sekulow, at ACLJ. Let me also encourage you to support the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. You've got great analysis here. We're on top of this. We filed a FOIA request already on the National Archives. Pretty good approach. I have to say, Ben Sisney came up with that really good approach from our team. ACLJ.org, you supported us in 2022. We appreciate it in 2023. ACLJ.org, have a great weekend. We may be talking to you this afternoon.